OSR Why does OSR Design Draw You In?

[Time_Feather]

I am a total novice on OSR play - I have been reading and loving OSR books like Shadowdark  and Outcast Silver Raiders, but I have never played or GM'd it. I see a wide variety of mechanical and narrative differences of course, but I want to hear what others think here. What design choices, if any, move you towards OSR games, as opposed to what is found in more "modern" games of D&D? Is it a mechanical tool, narrative frame, or some other design element that really scratches that itch for you?

 

[GothmogIV]

I can only speak for myself (naturally!), but I read a comment on Reddit a few years back that summarized my feelings about OSR vs 5e (for example): "what was once narrative is now mechanical." In other words, having been playing these game for a very long time, I prefer a lighter rules system because it encourages player creativity vs. depending on whatever mechanics they have available to them on their character sheets. If you want to be a pirate, be a pirate, instead of making your Pirate Check. I also don't like the power gaming: characters are too powerful too quickly. 5e can feel like a superhero game.

Again, one person's opinion.

 

[John Quixote]

I got into the hobby in the 90s — the 1106 D&D tan box and AD&D 2nd Edition — and the way everyone around me played was trad. Plotlines, protagonists, and playacting. If you could railroad under the table to make a story happen, awesome, that meant that you were a good DM who cared about narrative and theme and characterization. Player agency? Not a concern. Everything had to serve the story. And players weren't there to be challenged, they were there to get into character and portray their characters, ideally with full-on voices and thespianism, end of story. Or at least, until the end of the story.

It took me several years to notice that this way of playing D&D (a) wasn't particularly fun for a lot of players, and (b) was incredibly stressful to DM, especially if you felt like you had to keep yourself one session ahead of a few different possible branching paths the players might take. Add to that, by the time 3.0 was transitioning to 3.5, character builds and heavy rules systems were making D&D just plain burdensome to deal with at the table.

So I went back to the tan box and from there the Rules Cyclopedia, and the lighter systems eased the burden a bit. But it was really the OSR philosophy (think Abed Nadir: "I'm the Dungeon Master. I have to be impartial, or the game has no meaning") that makes the game runnable. Build a world, make it a lively and dynamic sandbox full of interesting discoverables and interactables, and then stop caring what happens to it. Turn the PCs loose on the sandbox, and then just let the game run itself. Play to find out what happens, and instead of being the maestro Houdini who pulls all the puppet-strings and effects all the outcomes, just enjoy that you get to be surprised.

 

[payn]

Nostalgia, mostly. It reminds me of the days as a kid learning to play RPGs. I will say I dont like OSR games in the long term. I dont like OSR campaigns, but I do like one shots and short runs a lot. It sort of reminds me of firing up a NES simulator and getting that Nintendo hard fix where a little goes a long way.

Since this is more like a rare treat for me, im probably not the best to ask about OSR.

 

[Knaves Quill]

I have zero nostalgia for D&D of yesteryear, but I find the creativity and freedom inherent in the space really fun and inspiring. I can tell stories I can't tell (as easily at least) in D20 modern fantasy. Mothership, the BORGs, Trophy and Shadowdark have been so fun.